Background
Kimberly Bellamy, proceeding pro se, sought to disqualify the trial judge after the judge issued a July 29, 2026 order stating that the court could not advocate for or coach a litigant and urging Bellamy to seek and retain counsel if possible. Bellamy viewed those statements as an insult to her pro se status and as evidence of bias.
Bellamy had sent emails to the judge’s judicial assistant seeking procedural guidance, including whether further procedural steps were required. The trial court denied her disqualification motion as legally insufficient on August 3, 2026. Bellamy then filed an emergency petition for writ of prohibition in the First District Court of Appeal.
The Court’s Holding
In a per curiam decision, the First District denied the petition. Judge Neff concurred separately, explaining that Bellamy’s allegations did not establish material facts creating a reasonable fear that she would not receive a fair hearing, as required for disqualification.
The order merely explained the court’s impartial role and advised Bellamy to consider obtaining counsel; it did not reflect prejudice or bias. Judge Neff concluded that Bellamy’s interpretation rested on unreasonable speculation rather than the order’s actual language.
Key Takeaways
- A judge’s statement that the court cannot coach a pro se litigant does not itself show bias.
- Advice that a party consider retaining counsel is consistent with a court’s impartial role.
- A disqualification motion must allege facts supporting an objectively reasonable fear of an unfair hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that litigants cannot obtain disqualification based on subjective disagreement with a judge’s neutral procedural guidance. Judge Neff also characterized the petition as an apparent litigation tactic and stated that he would consider sanctions, though the court’s per curiam disposition simply denied the petition.